TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE

ON

U.S. SENATE,
APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, DC.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate
to the fiscal year 2013 budget request for programs within the subcommittees jurisdiction.]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

This statement focuses on the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD).
On behalf of the Nations 37 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for the
opportunity to express our views and recommendations regarding the Department
of Housing and Urban Development Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
(TCUP) for fiscal year 2013.
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).Beginning in fiscal year

2001, a TCU initiative had been administered by the HUDOffice of University
Partnerships as part of the University Community Fund. This competitive grants
program enabled TCUs to build, expand, renovate, and equip their facilities that are
available to, and used by, their respective reservation communities. We strongly
urge the subcommittee to reject the recommendation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2013 budget request and to support the goals of Executive Order 13592 to
strengthen TCUs by funding the competitive HUDTCU Program, at the fiscal year
2010 level of $5.435 million. Additionally, we request that language be included to
permit that a small portion of the funds appropriated may be used to provide technical assistance to institutions eligible to participate in this competitive grants program.
TCU SHOESTRING BUDGETS: DOING SO MUCH WITH SO LITTLE

Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all United States institutions of higher education, must periodically undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their accreditation status. TCUs fulfill additional roles within their respective reservation communities
functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business
centers, economic development centers, public meeting places, and child and elder
care centers. Each TCU is committed to improving the lives of its students through
higher education and to moving American Indians toward self-sufficiency.
TCUs have advanced American Indian higher education significantly since we
first began four decades ago, but many challenges remain. Tribal Colleges and Universities are perennially underfunded. In fact, TCUs are the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in the country.
(1)

2
The tribal governments that have chartered TCUs are not among the handful of
wealthy gaming tribes located near major urban areas. Rather, they are some of the
poorest governments in the Nation. Tribal Colleges are home to some of the poorest
counties in America.
The Federal Government, despite its trust responsibility and treaty obligations,
has never fully funded the principal institutional operating budgets, authorized
under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. The
Tribal College Act authorizes basic institutional operations funding on a per Indian
student basis; yet the funds are not appropriated in the same manner. In fiscal year
2011, Congress proposed level funding for TCU institutional operating grants and
appropriated the communal pot of funds at the same level as fiscal year 2010. However, due to a spike in enrollments at the TCUs of over 1,660 Indian students in
a single year, the TCUs are receiving funds at $549 less per Indian student toward
their institutional operating budgets. Fully funding TCUs operating budgets would
require $8,000 per Indian student. TCUs are currently operating at $5,235 per Indian student. By contrast, Howard University located in the District of Columbia,
the only other Minority-Serving Institution to receive institutional operations funding from the Federal Government, is funded at approximately $19,000 per student.
We are by no means suggesting that Howard University does not need this funding,
only that the TCUs operating budgets are clearly grossly underfunded.
While TCUs do seek funding from their respective State legislatures for the nonIndian State-resident students (sometimes referred to as non-beneficiary students)
that account for 20 percent of their enrollments, successes have been at best inconsistent. TCUs are accredited by the same regional agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet they have to continually advocate for basic operating support for their non-Indian State students within their respective State legislatures.
If these non-beneficiary students attended any other public institution in the State,
the State would provide that institution with ongoing funding toward its operations.
TCUs effectively blend traditional teachings with conventional postsecondary curricula. They have developed innovative ways to address the needs of tribal populations and are overcoming long-standing barriers to success in higher education for
American Indians. Since the first TCU was established on the Navajo Nation in
1968, these vital institutions have come to represent the most significant development in the history of American Indian higher education, providing access to, and
promoting achievement among, students who might otherwise never have known
postsecondary education success.
Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to higher education for American
Indians and others living in some of the Nations most rural and economically depressed areas. According to U.S. Census data1, the annual per capita income of the
U.S. population is $26,059. By contrast, the annual per capita income of American
Indians is $15,671 or about 40 percent less. In addition to serving their student populations, TCUs offer a variety of much needed community outreach programs.
Inadequate funding has left many TCUs with no choice but to continue to operate
under severely distressed conditions. The need for HUDTribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) funding remains urgent for construction, renovation, improvement, and maintenance of key TCU facilities, such as basic and advanced
science laboratories, computer labs, and increasingly important student housing,
day care centers, and community services facilities. Although the situation has
greatly improved at many TCUs in the past several years, some TCUs still operateat least partiallyin donated and temporary buildings. Few have dormitories,
even fewer have student health centers and only one TCU has a science research
laboratory. At Sitting Bull College in Fort Yates, North Dakota, competitively
awarded HUD grant funds have been leveraged to expand the colleges usable space
from 12,000 square feet (sf) to 100,000 sf over 10 years. Additionally, HUD grant
dollars have been used to address three leaking roofs that creating a mold problem
in the area referred to at the college as the Hall of Buckets. Currently, funds are
being used to complete a renovation on its learning center, correcting major deficiencies, including recurring sewer and water issues, handicap accessibility problems, lack of effective safety/security measures (surveillance and alarm systems),
and outdated washroom facilities.
As a result of more than 200 years of Federal Indian policyincluding policies
of termination, assimilation and relocationmany reservation residents live in conditions of poverty comparable to that found in third world nations. Through the efforts of TCUs, American Indian communities are availing themselves of resources
needed to foster responsible, productive, and self-reliant citizens.
1 Source:

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

3
JUSTIFICATIONS

Department of Housing and Urban Development.Executive Order 13592 addressing American Indian education and strengthening of Tribal Colleges and Universities holds Federal agencies accountable to develop plans for integrating TCUs into
their programs. TCUs work with tribes and communities to address all aspects of
reservation life, including the continuum of education, housing, economic development, health promotion, law enforcement training and crime prevention. Likewise,
Federal agencies need to work with TCUs. To achieve results, Congress needs to
hold the administration accountable for strengthening the TCUs including their
physical plants and that they are routinely included as full partners in all existing
and potential Federal higher education programs. The HUDTCU competitive
grants program, administered by the Office of University Partnerships, is an excellent place to start. This competitive grants program has enabled TCUs to expand
their roles and efficacy in addressing development and revitalization needs within
their respective communities. No academic or student support projects have been
funded through this program; rather, funding was available only for community
based outreach and service programs and community facilities at TCUs. Through
this program, some TCUs have been able to build or enhance child care centers, including Head Start facilities and social services offices; help revitalize tribal housing; establish and expand small business development; and enhance vitally needed
community library services. Unfortunately, not all of the TCUs were able to benefit
from this small but very important program. The program staff at the Department
has no budget to provide technical assistance with regard to this program. If a small
portion of the appropriated funds were to be available for program staff to conduct
workshops and site visits, more of the TCUs and their respective communities could
benefit from this vital opportunity. We strongly urge the subcommittee to support
the HUDTCU competitive grants program at $5,435,000, and to include language
that will allow a small portion of these funds to be used to provide technical assistance to TCUs, to help ensure that much needed community services and programs
are expanded and continued in the communities served by the Nations Tribal Colleges and Universities.
PRESIDENTS FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET

The Presidents fiscal year 2013 budget request provides no funding for the University Community Fund, which housed the TCU program and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) programs. We respectfully request that the subcommittee reject the administrations recommendation and continue to recognize the abundant
need for facilities construction and improvement funds for TCUs and appropriate
funding for the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, and the other MSIHUD
programs, namely: Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Hispanic Serving
Institutions Assisting Communities; and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions Assisting Communities, to be allocated competitively within their
individual programs.
CONCLUSION

We respectfully request that beginning in fiscal year 2013, Congress illustrate its
support for the goals of the new Executive order aimed at strengthening TCUs by
restoring the HUDTCU competitive grants program and provide for technical assistance to help these vital institutions improve and expand their facilities to better
serve their students and communities. Thank you for your continued support of the
Nations TCUs and for your consideration of our fiscal year 2013 HUD appropriations requests.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), I thank you for this opportunity to
submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2013 Transportation and Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations bill as it relates to Federal investment in public
transportation and high-speed and intercity passenger rail.
APTAs highest priority continues to be the enactment of a well-funded, multimodal surface transportation authorization bill. We recognize the challenge that the
absence of an authorization bill places on the Appropriations Committee, yet we
must stress the tremendous needs that persist for public transportation agencies
throughout the country, and remind Congress that investment in transportation infrastructure puts Americans to work. Failure to invest will force private sector busi-

4
nesses in the transit industry and other industries to lay off employees and to invest
overseas, while increased Federal investment addresses the need for much-needed
capital investments and the growth of the industry. For the Nations tens of millions
of transit riders, any cuts will mean less service, fewer travel options, higher costs
and longer commutes. Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation in
2011, a 2.31 percent increase from 2010 and the second highest annual ridership
total since 1957. Only ridership in 2008, when gas rose to more than $4 a gallon,
surpassed last years ridership, and today gas prices are continuing to rise.
ABOUT APTA

APTA is a nonprofit international association of 1,500 public and private member

organizations, including transit systems and high-speed, intercity and commuter rail
operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service
providers; academic institutions; transit associations and State departments of
transportation.
OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2013 FUNDING REQUESTS

First, let me applaud the Senate for its work on passing the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21), with strong bipartisan support. It has
been more than 2 years since the expiration of SAFETEALU, and we are excited
to see progress being made toward a new authorization law. However, in the absence of a finalized piece of legislation, APTA continues to look towards existing
law, appropriations, and current budget proposals for appropriations request guidance.
It is important that steady and growing investment continue despite economic or
fiscal situations, as demand and long-term planning requirements for transportation
investment continue as well. In the Obama administrations fiscal year 2013 budget
proposal, along with their proposed 6-year surface transportation authorization proposal, the President requests $10.8 billion for public transportation programs in fiscal year 2013 and would additionally include $50 billion for a one-time state of good
repair investment program, spread across highway and transit programs. The Presidents proposal also requests $2.5 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger rail.
APTA applauds the Presidents proposed public transportation budget request.
While we recognize the growing pressures that are impacting general fund budget
authority allocations, APTA urges Congress to resist efforts to make further cuts to
general fund components of the Federal transit program, such as Capital Investment Grants and research, as these are important elements of Federal surface
transportation investment. In particular, many in the transit industry were particularly concerned about cuts in fiscal year 2012 to the Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP), an important program that produces basic research that is used
by transit agencies nationwide to improve efficiency, safety and technical capacity.
Finally, we encourage Congress to fund the Rail Safety Technology Grants program (section 105) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) at a level significantly higher than the $50 million authorized annually through fiscal year 2013, to
assist with the implementation of congressionally mandated positive train control
systems. The Federal deadline for implementation of positive train control systems
is rapidly approaching, and to date, Congress has not provided the necessary funding to support implementation of this important safety program.
THE NEED FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT INVESTMENT

In previous testimony to this subcommittee, APTA presented the case for increasing Federal investment in public transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that a one-time investment of $78 billion is needed to bring currently operating transit infrastructure up to a state of good repair, and this does
not include annual costs to maintain, expand or operate the existing system. Research on transit needs shows that capital investment from all sourcesFederal,
State, and localshould be doubled if we are to prepare for future ridership demands.
APTAs overall funding recommendation continues to be informed by our recommendations for surface transportation authorization and the estimated Federal
funding growth required to meet at least 50 percent of the $60 billion in annual
transit capital needs. These levels are intended to support a projected doubling of
transit ridership over the next 20 years. It is important to stress that the demand
for public transportation and the need for Federal leadership will not diminish in
the months and years ahead. As gasoline prices continue to increase, Americans are
turning to public transportation in record numbers, just as they did in 2008 when
gas reached an average price of $4.11 per gallon. Public transportation is a vital

5
component of the Nations total transportation infrastructure picture, and with ridership projected to grow, dependable public transportation systems will be vital to
the transportation needs of millions of Americans. While Congress continues to consider how to proceed on a well-funded, multi-modal surface transportation bill, it remains critically important that annual appropriations bills support both current and
growing needs.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

Capital Investment Grants (New Starts).APTA was pleased to see the Senate
continues to support the New Starts program in MAP21. The New Starts program
is the primary source of Federal investment in the construction or expansion of
heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit projects. The success of
these major, multi-year capital projects requires predictable support by Congress
and the FTA. Congress established Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) to provide this predictability. A continued commitment to Federal investment will also influence the willingness of private financial markets to finance public transportation
projects and it will help ensure that the bond ratings will remain high and interest
rates will remain low.
We urge the Congress to recognize the importance of long-term, predictable funding for all highway and transit programs, including New Starts. APTA believes that
the New Starts program should grow at the same rate as the rest of the transit program, as it is essential to enhancing our Nations mobility, accessibility and economic prosperity, while promoting energy conservation and environmental quality.
Formula and Bus and Bus Facilities.APTA seeks to continue funding for existing formula programs, including urban and rural formula, small transit intensive
cities (STIC), fixed guideway modernization, and others at a rate consistent with
overall FTA funding growth. These formula programs address core needs of our public transportation systems, and deserve the continued support of Congress. APTA
has recommended that Congress equitably balance the various needs of the Nations
diverse bus systems, including those operated by multimodal agencies. APTA has
called for modifying the current Bus and Bus Facilities program to create two separate categories of funding, with 50 percent distributed under bus formula factors,
and the remaining 50 percent available under a discretionary program distributed
either through congressional direction or a competitive grants process.
MAP21, the Senate authorization bill, creates a new structure for State of Good
Repair grants with a new formula program (high intensity motorbus state of good
repair) that focuses on systems that have a large number of bus rapid transit, express bus or other high intensity bus routes that may no longer qualify for fixed
guideway formula funds. The Senate-passed version of MAP21 also provides a new
$75 million general fund bus discretionary program authorization. The new program
provides another source of assistance for bus capital needs beyond the new formula
funds the bill makes available, with priority consideration provided to bus-only transit agencies.
Transit Research/Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).APTA strongly
urges the subcommittee to take a renewed look at the TCRP program and restore
funding to previous levels. Funding for the program was cut by 35 percent in fiscal
year 2012 and these cuts are having a significant impact in the production of highquality, peer-reviewed research that assists transit agencies, their employees and
even their governing boards to become more efficient and effective at delivering safe,
reliable and dependable transit services. The TCRP is an applied research program
that provides solutions to practical problems faced by transit operators. Over the
TCRPs 20 years of existence, it has produced over 500 publications/products on a
wide variety of issues of importance to the transit community. Research has produced a variety of transit vehicle and infrastructure standards and specifications,
as well as a variety of handbooks addressing many relevant subject areas of interest
to the transit community.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

Positive Train Control.A high priority for APTA within the programs of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the adequate funding of Positive Train Control (PTC) through the Railroad Safety Technology Grants Program, section 105 of
the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008. APTA is very discouraged that no
funding was provided for PTC in fiscal year 2012. The RSIA requires that all passenger railroads implement positive train control PTC systems by December 31,
2015. The cost of implementing PTC on public commuter railroads alone is estimated to exceed well over $2 billion, not including costs associated with acquiring

6
the necessary radio spectrum. APTA is urging Congress to significantly increase the
authorized levels for implementation of mandated PTC systems.
Our Nations commuter railroads are committed to complying with the PTC mandate and implementing critical safety upgrades. However, both the costs associated
with implementing PTC, as well as the challenges associated with a technology that
is still under development, are quite substantial. Recognizing the difficulties related
to implementing PTC, the House and Senate have both included extensions of the
implementation deadline in their respective surface transportation authorization
bills. If enacted, the proposed extensions will assist publicly funded commuter railroads in meeting the mandate. However, substantial Federal funding is also necessary. Many commuter railroads are being forced to delay critical system safety
state of good repair projects in order to install PTC by 2015. Additional funding provided by Congress for the Railroad Safety Technology grants is fundamental to the
industrys ability to implement PTC.
High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Investment.Ridership in the overall
passenger rail market in the United States has been steadily growing, with commuter rail being one of the most frequently used methods of public transportation
for those traveling from outlying suburban areas to commercial centers of metropolitan areas, often to and from places of employment, education, commerce and medical care. The demand for commuter rail service has also remained strong, with ridership on this mode increasing nationally by 2.5 percent in 2011, and six commuter
rail systems seeing double digit increases in 2011. As the current political unrest
in many oil producing nations continues, more and more commuters are turning to
public transportation to escape rising gas prices.
In addition to commuter rail, it is critical that intercity passenger rail become a
more useful transportation option for travelers looking for alternatives to high gas
prices and congested road and air travel in many corridors. Thirty-two States plus
the District of Columbia are forging ahead in planning and implementing passenger
rail improvements. It is more important than ever for the United States to invest
in its infrastructure as the efficient movement of people and goods is essential for
sustained economic growth and recovery.
CONCLUSION

We thank the subcommittee for allowing us to share APTAs views on fiscal year
2013 public transportation and high-speed and intercity rail appropriations issues.
APTA looks forward to working with the committee to grow the public transportation program. We urge the subcommittee to invest in making commuter, intercity
and high-speed rail safer by fully appropriating the funds authorized in the RSIA
and ask Congress to continue investing in a high-speed rail system. This is a critical
time for our Nation to continue to invest in transit infrastructure that promotes economic growth, energy independence, and a better way of life for all Americans.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

COALITION

OF

NORTHEASTERN GOVERNORS

The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to share with the

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies its views on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for surface transportation, rail,
and community development programs. The CONEG Governors deeply appreciate
the subcommittees longstanding support of funding for the Nations highway, transit, transportation safety, and rail programs. Federal support is vital to maintain
the Nations transportation system, enhance its capacity to meet diverse and enormous needs, and contribute to a balanced, integrated national transportation system
that supports the Nations current and future economic growth. As the Nations population grows and the economy recovers, these needs confront all of usFederal,
State and local governments and the private sector.
We recognize that the subcommittee, in crafting the fiscal year 2013 appropriations measure, faces a very difficult set of choices in this environment of severe fiscal constraints. The current economic situation exacerbates the shortfall in the
Highway Trust Fund (HTF), even as it has contributed to one of the highest demands for public transportation in more than 50 years. The national debate on the
scope and scale of the surface transportation authorization and funding has advanced significantly, but has not yet resulted in a new authorization framework, including the potential for new approaches to fund, restructure and finance highway
and transit programs. In spite of these challenges, we urge the subcommittee to continue a strong Federal/State partnership so vital for a national, integrated, multimodal transportation system. This system underpins the competitiveness of the Na-

7
tions economy; broadens employment opportunities; and contributes to the efficient,
safe, environmentally sound, and energy-efficient movement of people and goods.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

As the surface transportation authorization moves to completion, the CONEG

Governors urge the subcommittee to fund the highway obligation ceiling at the $42
billion level, adequately fund safety and innovative financing programs, and maintain at least the fiscal year 2012 levels for public transit programs. This level of
Federal investment is the minimum needed to slow the decline in infrastructure
conditions and maintain the safety of the Nations highways, bridges, and transit
systems.
Continued and substantial Federal investment in these infrastructure improvementsin urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areasis necessary to safely and
efficiently move people and products and to support the substantial growth in
freight movement projected in the coming decades. The Federal Government has invested significant resources in the Nations transportation systems, and it has a continuing responsibility to maintain and enhance the capacity of the Nations transportation infrastructure to keep America competitive in a global economy.
Specifically, the CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to:
Fund the highway obligation ceiling at the $42 billion level;
Maintain public transit funding at no less than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated levels, with full funding for the current transit formula and capital investment and preserving the historic funding balance between these programs;
Ensure that Federal transit funds are released to States and designated recipients in a timely manner; and
Expand the use of innovative financing and public-private partnerships to supplement direct Federal funding, including Federal loan guarantees and credit
assistance, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act program (TIFIA).
RAIL

The Governors deeply appreciate the subcommittees past support for intercity
passenger rail, and we urge that it again provides funding in fiscal year 2013 that
will allow efficient intercity passenger rail corridors to be developed as part of a national, multi-modal transportation system. In the Northeast, continued, adequate
Federal investment is critical to bring the current system to a state of good repair;
help expand its capacity to meet the growing ridership; provide improved service to
communities; attract State, local and private sector investments in the Nations
intercity passenger rail system; and develop a coordinated, comprehensive vision
and plans for future services. These investments are essential for the accessible, reliable, frequent and on-time service that attracts and retains ridership and grows
revenues.
The Northeast has one of the oldest and most extensive multi-modal transportation systems in the world. This system faces major congestion and capacity constraints which, if not addressed, have the potential to curtail future commerce and
mobility in a region that is densely populated and serves as an economic engine for
the Nation. To begin to address these capacity constraints, the northeast States
have invested significantly in the passenger rail corridors of the regionthe Northeast Corridor (NEC), the Empire Corridor, the Northern New England Corridor, and
the Keystone Corridor. They have leveraged Federal funds appropriated for intercity
passenger rail projects eligible under the framework created by the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA). The intense efforts of the States, Amtrak
and freight railroads in recent years are now showing results in the Nations busiest
rail corridor. However, continued significant investments in this corridor network
are needed to meet the growing intercity passenger travel market. The joint planning and funding efforts over the past 3 years are part of an on-going coordinated
effort to reduce travel times, increase speed, improve service reliability and on-time
performance, eliminate choke points, improve stations, replace aging bridges and
electrical systems, install track and ties, replace catenary wires, and purchase new
locomotives. Among the current projects that are employing thousands of workers
using American-made supplies are the following:
High speed rail improvements between New York City and Trenton, New Jersey
are boosting capacity, reliability, and speed on a 22-mile segment of track capable of supporting train speeds up to 160 miles-per-hour.
The Harold Interlocking improvement will alleviate delays for trains coming in
and out of Manhattan by providing new routes that allow Amtrak trains to bypass the busiest passenger rail junction in the Nation.

8
Installation of high-speed third track near Wilmington, Delaware will allow for
increased speeds.
Track improvements in Kingston, Rhode Island will add an additional 1.5 miles
of third track and improve capacity.
Access improvements for passengers using Union Station in Washington, DC
will improve passenger travel.
Amtrak.The Amtrak fiscal year 2013 budget request contains specific funding
levels provided for operations, capital and debt service. These funding levels will enable Amtrak to continue a balanced program of adequate, sustained capital investment in infrastructure and fleet modernization programs that are vital for an efficient intercity passenger rail system that can meet the rising demand for reliable,
safe, quality services.
The Amtrak capital request encompasses urgently needed investments in infrastructure, more cost-efficient equipment replacement, and safety and security improvements in the NEC and corridors across the Nation. Timely action on a systematic plan to replace aging equipment used throughout the system can help modernize the current Amtrak fleet, offer the prospect of more efficient procurement by
Amtrak and by States, and help stimulate the growth of the domestic rail manufacturing sector.
We also strongly urge the subcommittee to provide Amtrak the requested $60 million for the Gateway and other integrated infrastructure and equipment projects
that will allow improved intercity service on the NECthe backbone of a passenger
rail network that connects the entire Northeast and extends rail service to communities in the South, West, and Canada. These projects are initial steps required to
address the backlog of deferred investments, and to make investments in near-term
improvements in track, bridges, tunnels and equipment that will increase the capacity of the NEC to offer more reliable and frequent intercity service that can deliver
more riders to their destination in less travel time. Improvements on the NEC can
also help address the congested highway corridors and crowded northeast airports
that are a major source of airport travel delays nationwide.
Intercity Passenger Rail Corridors.To advance the initial investments made by
the Federal Government and the States, the Governors urge the subcommittee in
fiscal year 2013 to fund the competitive Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Capital
Assistance Program, and to provide provisions that fund the planning activities for
the development of passenger rail corridors, including multi-state corridors. The
multi-state planning funds are the source of the monies that support the initial
work being led by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to develop an updated
service development plan and environmental analysis that reflect the current and
projected demand for passenger rail service on the NEC. A funding level of $22 million is needed in fiscal year 2013 for these analyses which are required for any future major improvements for high speed intercity passenger rail service on the NEC.
Since these corridors serve diverse travel markets, we urge that these grant funds
be available to States to advance plans for reliable, travel-time competitive service,
regardless of maximum speed requirements. In light of the stringent FRA requirements for intercity passenger rail grants, we also request the subcommittee to waive
the current statutory requirement that projects be part of an approved State rail
plan, since this requirement might curtail thoughtful and well advanced efforts already underway by the States.
Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission.The
Governors thank the subcommittee for providing funding for the Northeast Corridor
Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (Commission). Consistent with
its responsibilities defined under PRIIA, the Commission is working actively to facilitate mutual cooperation and planning among the States, Amtrak, freight railroads, and the FRA for intercity, commuter and freight use of the Corridorand to
also maximize the economic growth and the energy and environmental benefits of
the larger regional NEC Network.
The Commission has extensive responsibilities to set corridor-wide policy goals
and recommendations that encompass passenger rail mobility, intermodal connections to highways and airports, energy consumption, air quality improvements, and
local and regional economic development of the entire northeast region. It is also
tasked to develop a standardized formula to determine and allocate the costs, revenues and contributions among NEC commuter railroads and Amtrak that use each
others facilities and services. The Commissions work will also guide the vision and
service development plans that are a pre-requisite to fund projects that can improve
the capacity of the NEC. To conduct the assessments required by Congress in a
timely manner, the Commission needs resources, data and expert analysis that exceed that which is currently available through the staff of the States, Amtrak and

9
FRA. Continued funding in fiscal year 2013 will ensure the Commissions ability to
secure all essential resources for conducting these assessments.
Other Programs.A number of other national rail and intermodal programs are
important components of the evolving Federal-State-private sector partnerships to
enhance passenger and freight rail across the country.
The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF) can be
an important tool for railroads (particularly regional and short-line railroads) and
public agencies to access the financing needed for critical infrastructure and intermodal projects. We also encourage the subcommittee to provide funding for the Rail
Line Relocation program, the Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool, and
critical rail safety programs.
We support the continuation of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grant program, at $500 million to encourage investment in multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional or other road, rail, transit and
port projects that help achieve critical national objectives.
Adequate funding is needed for the Surface Transportation Board to carry out its
expanded responsibilities for intercity passenger rail corridor service, including its
specific responsibilities under PRIIA regarding equitable cost-sharing formulas
among States, Amtrak and commuter railroads.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

The CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to provide funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program at least at the fiscal year 2012 level
of $2.95 billion. By enabling States to invest in improved local infrastructure, rehabilitated affordable housing, and local economic development and jobs, the CDBG
program provides needed assistance to redevelop and improve neighborhoods and
communities nationwide.
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to:

Fund the highway obligation ceiling at the $42 billion level and an expanded
TIFIA program;
Maintain Federal public transit funding at no less than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated levels, with full funding for the transit formula and capital investment programs, and preserving the historic funding balance between these programs;
Fund Amtrak at levels that will support sound operations and a balanced capital investment program, including the NEC capacity improvements;
Maintain provisions to fund the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission;
Provide funding for the Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Assistance
Program for corridor planning and capital investment, including provisions for
multi-state corridor planning;
Provide funding for such national rail programs as the Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool, the Rail Line Relocation program and the RRIF
program;
Provide $500 million for the TIGER program;
Provide adequate funding for the Surface Transportation Board; and
Maintain funding for the Community Development Block Grant at the $2.95 billion level.
The CONEG Governors thank the entire subcommittee for the opportunity to
share these priorities and appreciate your consideration of these requests.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE INSTITUTE OF

MAKERS

OF

EXPLOSIVES

INTEREST OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES

The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) is the safety and security association
of the commercial explosives industry. Commercial explosives underpin the economy. They are essential to energy production, construction, demolition, and the
manufacture of any metal/mineral product. Explosives are transported and used in
every State. Additionally, our products are distributed worldwide, while some explosives must be imported because they are not manufactured in the United States.
The ability to transport and distribute these products safely and securely is critical
to this industry.

10
BACKGROUND

The production and distribution of hazardous materials is a trillion-dollar industry that employs millions of Americans. While these materials contribute to Americas quality of life, unless handled properly, personal injury or death, property damage, and environmental consequences can result. The threat of intentional misuse
of these materials also factors into public concern. To protect against these outcomes, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is charged under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) to provide adequate protection against the
risks to life and property inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce by improving regulation and enforcement.1 The Secretary has delegated
the HMTA authorities to various modal administrations, with primary regulatory
authority resting in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA).
PHMSA regulates hazardous material (hazmat) transportation so closely that it
may not be moved any distance, via any mode of transportation unless a Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation, permit or approval authorizes the movement of a material. This blanket prohibition against transportation unless there is
a specific DOT authorization for that transportation makes efficient consideration
of such authorizations critical to the industries involved and the millions of workers
they employ, as well as to the national defense, the security of our homeland, and
the economy at large. Accordingly, how PHMSA performs its regulatory function has
a significant impact on our industry.
SIGNIFICANCE OF PHMSAS SPECIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS PROGRAM TO THE
COMMERCIAL EXPLOSIVES INDUSTRY

The permits (designated special permits) and approvals that PHMSA issues require applicants to establish that the function to be performed provides an equivalent or a greater level of safety than would be achieved by conforming to the agencys rules. They are not authorizations that allow someone to do something unsafe
that otherwise would be prohibited under the rules. In both instances, the authorizations are issued to specifically identified individuals, in response to detailed applications (that are incorporated by reference in the authorizations), under criteria
that are defined by or at least as stringent as the applicable regulations. These conditions can be changed by PHMSA at will, with limited rights for affected parties
to petition for redress.
The process of applying for and maintaining such authorizations involves more
paperwork and accountability than is required to petition for rule changes. Moreover, holders of these special authorizations face the constant risk of having them
revoked, suspended, or modified. All special permits and many approvals also have
expiration dates, requiring timely filing of applications for renewal. All require reporting of the holders experience with the authorization so that PHMSA can properly evaluate the appropriateness of the authorization. The biggest difference between a special permit and an approval is that a special permit is an alternative
means to comply with the regulations in domestic commerce, while an approval may
apply to domestic or international transportation and can only be issued if there is
a specific reference to the activity authorized by the approval in PHMSAs regulations.
Currently, there are thousands of special permits and approvals within the
PHMSA program; many have been renewed without change for decades. Entire industries now find themselves regulated through special permits and approvals. The
commercial explosives industry is a case in point. Billions of pounds of bulk explosive precursors and blasting agents are transported annually in the United States
in vehicles operating under special permit. Without these permits, the industry
would collapse. Likewise, the commercial explosives industry is uniquely dependent
on PHMSAs approval authority. Manufacturers of commercial explosives, as opposed to other classes of hazardous materials, may not self-classify these products.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) require that new explosives be classified by PHMSA before they are offered for transport. These explosives classification
approvals are the largest type of approval issued by the agency. Prior to approval,
the HMR require that explosives be examined and tested by a laboratory approved
by PHMSA. The testing criteria are based on standards recognized worldwide, and
typically cost tens of thousands of dollars per application. The expense of this rigorous testing, both in terms of product sacrificed as well as the costs of the tests,
is borne by the applicant.
1 49

U.S.C. Chapter 51.

11
Congress never intended special permits or approvals to be a long-term solution
for the transportation innovations they authorize. The expectation is that proven
special permits and approvals that have future, long-term use would be incorporated
into the HMR. According to DOT, no deaths have been attributed to packages
shipped under special permits or approvals for decades.2 PHMSAs failure to incorporate proven special permits into its regulations now exposes many industries to
the current whims of agency action.
PHMSAS FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET INCREASE REQUEST AND USER TAX ARE
UNJUSTIFIED

As noted above, the HMTA requires that PHMSAs regulations be risk-based. The
agency, in turn, measures the success of its hazmat safety program by the number
of transportation-related deaths and serious injuries (i.e., hospitalizations) are attributed to the hazardous materials.3 The agency acknowledges that these numbers
have declined an average of 4 percent every 3 years over the long term. 4 Last
year, 11 deaths, all due to human error, not a failure of a regulatory standard, were
attributed to hazardous materials. None, since the early 1970s, have been attributed
to commercial explosives. This contrasts with thousands of deaths annually that result from crashes involving large trucks, for example. Despite these compelling statistics and the current budget climate, PHMSA requests a 19.7-percent increase
over fiscal year 2012 and 22 new positions, a 12.6-percent increase in full-time positions (FTP), for the hazmat program. Completely unjustified is PHMSAs proposal
to devote 24 percent of the agencys budget to the processing of applications for special permits and approvals where there is no record of death.
While investigations into the Special Permits and Approvals program in the last
Congress revealed that PHMSA had misplaced many documents from applications,
none were attributed to a death or serious injury. Instead of asking holders of these
authorities to provide the missing documents, PHMSA proceeded without notice and
comment to restructure the program from one that took weeks to process applications to one that takes months, with double or triple the paperwork, and to establish
a complex tiered system of applications reviews, including costly site visits, based
on unpublished and unknown standards. In short, the agency created a paperwork
empire, with no commensurate safety benefit. The cost and delay that have resulted
from the agencys unfettered administrative actions are impediments to U.S. businesses dependent on these authorizations in the global race to market.
To finance this new special permit and approval processing hierarchy, PHMSA requested, as it did in fiscal year 2012, user fees of between $700 and $3,000 per application. PHMSA estimates that the fees will generate $12 million. This user tax
is without merit:
The user fee revenue would be used to underwrite the agencys general fund,
although only a fraction of the regulated community are holders of special permits and approvals.
No death has been attributed to special permits or approvals since 1971 when
agency records began to be kept.
The Federal Government, not private companies, is the largest holder of approvals and special permits. The Government will pay no fees.
Historically, fees have not been imposed on foreign entities for fear of retaliatory fees on U.S. exports giving foreign shippers a competitive advantage in the
United States.
PHMSA states that it needs funds to implement its Special Permits and Approvals Action Plan. However, PHMSA and the DOT/Office of Inspector General
have said that the action plan implementation is complete.
Nowhere in the budget request does PHMSA reveal its special permit and approval workload. Yet, the agency has reported to industry that there is no
longer a backlog of applications, suggesting that the agency is managing with
current resources.
PHMSA estimates it processes 25,000 applications per year. At 25,000 applications per year, the cost per application should be no more than $533. Using the
$700$3,000 fee range, PHMSA will generate between $17.5 million and $75
million in new revenue; nearly 1.5 to over 6 times the $12 million the agency
estimates it will need.
2 PHMSA claims that a maritime incident in 2008 which resulted in three deaths was caused
by the violation of a special permit. However, the deaths were not the proximate result of a
special permit violation. Testimony in the resultant litigation showed the deaths were due to
negligence of a number of parties involved in the shipment.
3 DOT 2011 Annual Performance Report, February 2012, page 9.
4 Fiscal Year 2013 PHMSA Budget Justification, page 3.

12
Additional Federal workers will have to be hired to administer and collect the
fee.
It is the business activity, not the size, of a company that determines how many
applications may be filed. Many payers will be small businesses.
With the fee, there would be no incentive for PHMSA to incorporate proven special permits into the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
The fee would be payable per application, creating an incentive for PHMSA to
deny or reject applications on trivial pretexts thus generating new fees.
Other DOT modal administrations issue approvals or what amount to special
permits; none assess fees.
This program, which provides safety benefits to the public, has been successfully run for decades without user fees. PHMSAs proposal could be the start
of a trend for user fees for other regulatory actions including letters of interpretations or petitions for rulemaking necessary for compliance and good government.
PHMSA claims that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
mandated the programmatic changes necessitating the fees. However, there is no
such statutory requirement, and neither has Congress provided PHMSA authority
for this user fee. This user fee is really a hidden tax on companies that innovate
and produce goods needed strengthen and rebuild the U.S. economy. The user fee
initiative should be rejected.
Rather than be party to the agencys costly empire building scheme, including six
new FTP this year, the subcommittee should be asking what the agency is doing
to streamline the application process; why increasingly stringent monitoring of
permit and approval holders is necessary given the safety record of these entities;
how the agency hopes to accelerat[e] incorporation of special permit[s] into the
HMR when no new resources above baseline were requested to support rulemaking
activity; and why the agency is devoting scarce staff resources to second-guess the
results of government-established tests performed at government-approved laboratories for explosives classification approvals.5
OTHER BUDGETARY ISSUES TO CONSIDER

Staffing and Workload.PHMSAs budget request provides no baseline empirical

workload metrics to judge PHMSAs performance or the merit of the budget request.
For example, the request is silent on the causes or rates of special permit or approval denials and resubmissions, which would drive workload and user fee receipts.
The information, when provided, is prospective, not retrospective. The agencys
budget increase is driven by requests for new FTP. These staffing enhancements are
mis-allocated. The subcommittee should deny these requests:
Field Operations (FO).The number of FO positions has nearly doubled since
2003 to 63 FTP, with a FTP increase of 16 in fiscal year 2010. This year,
PHMSA is requesting another 12 FTP, with no more justification than that the
agency has only been able to inspect 2 percent of facilities under their jurisdiction. However, a 2-percent inspection rate may be appropriate given the minimal rate of non-compliance within the regulated community.6 At the same
time, PHMSA provides no retrospective information on the actual number of inspection/investigation reports have been filed and how the inspections are categorized.
Radioactive Materials.PHMSA requests two additional FTP to address emergency threats from radioactive materials. However, quantities of high level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel are not moving from nuclear power plants
in the absence of a permanent repository. Likewise, PHMSAs concern about
cargo containers arriving in U.S. ports with surface radioactive contamination
is a Customs and Border Protection concern. This request is without merit.
Grants Programs (GPs).PHMSA operates three GPs funded by fees assessed on
the hazardous materials community. We have long looked for evidence of program
accomplishment and question the agencys claims about achievements ascribed to
these programs. In 2005, Congress directed the agency to annually provide a detailed accounting of all grant expenditures.7 In the intervening 7 years, the agency
has released only one such report, and that report did not provide the retrospective
accounting necessary to determine if grant recipients were using funds appropriately.8 This year, an audit of the GPs by the Office of Inspector General found
5 Fiscal

Year 2013 PHMSA Budget Justification, pages 68 and 100.

Year 2013 PHMSA Budget Justification, page 67.
U.S.C. 5116(k).
8 http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files
/ReportltolCongresslHMEPlGrantslProgram 2005l2006.pdf.
6 Fiscal
749

13
systemic mismanagement and misuse of grant funds.9 PHMSAs request increases
the fees allocated to administer the GPs from 2 percent to 4 percent although such
fees are limited to 2 percent by statute.10 These programs warrant increased oversight by the subcommittee.
CONCLUSION

The transport of hazardous materials is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs millions of Americans. This commerce has been accomplished with a remarkable degree of safety. PHMSA has silenced the voice of the regulated community by
refusing to submit its special permit and approval standard operating procedures
and fitness criteria to notice and comment rulemaking. The subcommittee needs
to make difficult decisions about where to save scarce Federal resources. Cutting the
self-contrived administrative bloat from PHMSAs hazmat safety program would be
a place to start. In addition to rejecting the proposed user fee, we strongly recommend that the subcommittee deny new staffing requests as explained, but redirect any new resources to enhance PHMSAs information technology and rulemaking
capacities.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE INSTITUTE OF

MAKERS

OF

EXPLOSIVES

INTEREST OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES

The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) is the safety and security association
of the commercial explosives industry. Commercial explosives underpin the economy. They are essential to energy production, construction, demolition, and the
manufacture of any metal/mineral product. Explosives are transported and used in
every State. The ability to transport and distribute these products safely and securely is critical to this industry. At some point, virtually all explosives are transported by truck. Among these explosives are products classed as Division 1.1, 1.2,
and 1.3 materials, which with other select hazardous materials, may only be transported by motor carriers holding a hazardous materials safety permit (HMSP)
issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). According to
program data, carriers of explosives make up the largest segment, roughly half, of
the universe of HMSP holders.
Our industry has maintained an exceptional safety record for decades. According
to the Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS), no deaths have been attributed to commercial explosives since the Department of Transportation began collecting data in the 1970s. Despite the safety record of our industry, we have members who struggle when it comes maintaining their HMSP qualification.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

We will be the first to admit that we failed to appreciate the full impact of the
disqualifying out-of-service (OOS) thresholds when FMCSA finalized the HMSP rule
in 2004. First, the preamble and the regulatory text set forth in the 2003 proposal,
as well as the preamble to the HMSP final rule, describes the agencys intent to
issue HMSPs to motor carriers with a satisfactory safety rating.1 Those without
a satisfactory safety rating would be eligible for a temporary HMSP if they have
a crash rate in the top 30 percent of the national average, or a driver, vehicle, hazardous materials, or total [OOS] rate in the top 30 percent of the national average.
(Emphasis added.) Second, the or total OOS rate suggested that the 30 percent
national average disqualification would, in the aggregate, disqualify only 30 percent
of carriers. As FMCSA has implemented this program, however, these were not the
standards that a carrier could rely on to obtain a permit. Instead, no HMSP may
be issued to a carrier who performs in the top 30 percent of each OOS category.
Since the HMSP programs inception in 2005, we have urged FMCSA, in meetings, letters, and petitions, to relook at this program and make needed reforms.
Over these 7 years, the HMSP program has been plagued by administrative
missteps including double counting OOS inspections and thousands of erroneous denials of applications. Questions remain unanswered about the statistical basis used
by FMCSA to calculate the programs most critical criterion, the hazardous material
(hazmat) OOS rate. We have documented the inherent unfairness of a system that
relies on OOS rates. Roadside inspections are not random (nor should they be given
limited resources), nor are they without the bias of personal judgment. Further, the
9 OIG,
1049
1 68

DOT, AV2012040, January 12, 2012.

U.S.C. 5116(i)(4).
FR 49737, 49752 and 49753 (August 19, 2003); 69 FR 39367, 39352 (June 30, 2004).

14
methodology used to determine significance of the inspection data lacks statistical
confidence. Even if a carrier survives this flawed qualification process, it provides
no assurance that the same level of performance will enable the carrier to retain
its HMSP as carriers are subject to a relative, not absolute, standard of safety.
Please know that we do not object to a HMSP; we do object to the bias and uncertainty that this program breeds, especially when the program has shown no nexus
to safety enhancement.
SAFETY BENEFITS OF THE HMSP UNPROVEN

FMCSA estimated that implementing the HMSP program would prevent seven
hazmat truck-related crashes per year. The agency stated that the safety benefits
derived from the projected crash reductions would be large because of the number
of conventional crashes that may be prevented. This has not proved to be the case.
The experience after the nearly 6 years of the HMSP and during the 6 years immediately preceding the implementation of the HMSP shows that: 2

2 Data

from the Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS), 12/13/2011.

57

Total ...........................................................................................................................

....................

....................
....................
....................

Fatalities

60

13
1
46
....................

Crashes

....................

....................
....................
....................

Fatalities

20052010

1,909

....................
....................
....................
....................

Crashes

62

....................
....................
....................
....................

Fatalities

2,190

....................
....................
....................
....................

Crashes

60

....................
....................
....................
....................

Fatalities

20052010

All hazmat highway incidents

19992004

may be that none of these crashes are HRCQ. From the data in HMIS, it was possible to eliminate some incidents that were clearly not HRCQ. Where there was doubt the incident was counted.
2 The HMIS includes records of two off-highway, non-crash incidents that resulted in fatalities involving materials covered by the HMSP. Both incidents involve fireworks stored on trucks, and both incidents occurred after delivery. Consequently, the American Pyrotechnics Association disputes whether these incidents are transportation-related. In 2003, four workers were killed after the local government asked that a show for another location be removed from the site. In
2009, five workers were killed while setting up a show using a truck as a workroom for assembling the display.

1 It

9
4
43
1

Crashes

19992004

Explosives (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) ........................................................................................................

RAM (HRCQ 1) ..........................................................................................................................
TIH ...........................................................................................................................................
Methane ..................................................................................................................................

HMSP material

15

16
For HMSP holders, this record highlights the need for an immediate reconsideration of the disqualifying standards that are threatening their livelihoods. Keep in
mind that the vast majority of carriers subject to the HMSP are not long-haul,
freight-all-kinds carriers. They serve niche markets that rely on local, often rural
delivery, and require specialized equipment. As such, these carriers do not frequent
routes with inspection stations. Once these carriers get into trouble based on the
non-random, often subjective OOS calls by inspectors, it is virtually impossible for
these carriers to accrue sufficient good inspections to overcome the bad. For example, it is not uncommon for a carrier to have less than 15 inspections in the 12
months prior to the expiration of the carriers HMSP. If two of those inspections result in an OOS 3, it would take 56 clean inspections to requalify the carriers. And,
the later into the 12-month qualification period the second OOS occurs, the more
unlikely it is that a carrier could recover. These carriers do not have the option to
carry non-HMSP freight while working to requalify for a permit. The irony is that,
when these carriers get into jeopardy, FMCSA does not routinely suspend or revoke
the HMSP; rather the carrier is allowed to operate until it is time to apply for renewal. The regulations allow for appeals when permits are suspended or revoked,
but not if the carrier is applying for renewal.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF

Last year, FMCSA accepted a petition for rulemaking from IME and other affected industry associations filed to reform the HMSP disqualification standards.
While we are pleased that FMCSA has accepted our petition, we are disappointed
that the agency has determined that this rulemaking should not be initiated until
the CSA Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) final rule is published, as it will be
used as the basis for initiating this rule. 4 (Emphasis added.) We would like to
strongly suggest that the HMSP rulemaking should take precedence over the SFD
rulemaking. First, the HMSP program is being used now as the SFD standard for
covered materials. Covered carriers that do not meet the contested HMSP standards
may be shutdown. Non-HMSP carriers do not yet face this outcome. Second, the
problematic HMSP disqualification standards are based on inspections and OOS determinations. These same metrics are expected to be the basis of the standards to
be proposed in the SFD rulemaking. Third, the HMSP regulated community is very
small relative to the universe of carriers that will be subject to the SFD. We believe
FMCSA should immediately act to fix the HMSP disqualification standards and export that refined SDF model to the larger commercial trucking universe under CSA.
The agencys reluctance to immediately address the shortcomings of the HMSP is
particularly troubling because implicit in FMCSAs plan to address by rulemaking
many of the issues raised by industry is an acknowledgment of deficiencies with the
current program. These deficiencies will persist over the intervening years between
now and the time that they are resolved through the rulemaking process. The adverse impacts to the regulated community are undeserved.
Given these facts, we are concerned that neither legislation nor regulation will
move fast enough to prevent relatively good carriers from losing their HMSP and,
as explained, being put out of business based on limited data anomalies. We have
asked FMCSA to immediately address these pressing concerns by issuing an interim
final rule (IFR) to at least provide for an additional level of fitness review prior to
the denial, revocation, or suspension of a safety permit until such time that the
agency proceeds with the full rulemaking based on our petition. The additional level
of administrative fitness review would consider the safety management controls of
the applicant or holder not just OOS violations rates, and it would provide the applicant or holder an opportunity to file a corrective action plan to address identified
concerns.5
We have not heard from FMCSA whether the agency would be willing to pursue
the IFR option we have described. At the same time, it is concerning to us that nowhere in FMCSAs fiscal year 2013 budget estimate does it reference, let alone discuss, the issues described.6 Justice will not be served by inattention to these press3 This assumes that the OOS citation was corrected issued. CSA experience shows that
FMCSAs Data Q process is overwhelmed and State ability and/or willingness to expend resources on these challenges is a growing concern.
4 Letter to IME from FMCSA, November 14, 2011, page 1.
5 This opportunity should not be available to applicants or holders that present an imminent
hazard or evidence of a pattern of willful and knowing non-compliance with safety regulations.
6 The HMSP is mentioned once in the Department of Transportation Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2011, page 22, FMCSA will continue to seek to implement programs and regulations that raise the bar to entry into the motor carrier industry, including. . . expanding enforcement of and compliance with the [HMSP] requirements. . . .

17
ing concerns. The uncertainty of when FMCSA will be able to carry out the HMSP
rulemaking coupled with the urgency to take some action based on acknowledged
program deficiencies compel us to ask the subcommittee to deny funds to administer
this program until FMCSA provides interim measures to ensure that HMSP holders
are not denied permits based solely on the flawed disqualification standards in place
now.
CONCLUSION

Neither IME nor its members object to the need for a HMSP. We do object to the
current standards for disqualification. They are not risk-based. Inspection frequency
and outcome do not seem to correlate to crashes or fatalities. Thank you for your
attention to these concerns.

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL

Chairwoman Murray, Vice Chairwoman Collins and members of the subcommittee. I am submitting this statement regarding the Presidents budget request
(PBR) for fiscal year 2013 on behalf of the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). My name is Cheryl A. Causley and I am the chairwoman of the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), the only national tribal nonprofit
organization dedicated to advancing housing, physical infrastructure, and economic
and community development in tribal communities throughout the United States.
I am also an enrolled member of the Bay Mills Indian Community in Brimley,
Michigan, and the Executive Director of the Bay Mills Indian Housing Authority.
I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony
for the subcommittees consideration as it reviews the PBR.
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL

The NAIHC was founded in 1974 and has, for 38 years, served its members by
providing invaluable training and technical assistance (T/TA) to all tribes and tribal
housing entities; providing information to Congress regarding the issues and challenges that tribes face in terms of housing, infrastructure, and community and economic development; and working with key Federal agencies to address these important and, at times, vexing issues, and to help meet the challenges. The membership
of NAIHC is expansive, comprised of 271 members representing 463 1 tribes and
tribal housing organizations. The primary goal of NAIHC is to support Native housing entities in their efforts to provide safe, decent, affordable, culturally appropriate
housing for Native people.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEMS REGARDING HOUSING IN INDIAN COUNTRY

While the country has been experiencing an economic downturn that many have
described as the worst global recession since World War II, this economic reality is
greatly magnified in Indian communities. The national unemployment rate seems
to have peaked at an alarming rate of nearly 10 percent; however, that rate does
not compare to the unemployment rates in Indian Country, which average 49 percent.2 The highest unemployment rates are on the Plains reservations, where the
average rate is 77 percent.3
Because of the remote locations of many reservations, there is a lack of basic infrastructure and economic development opportunities are difficult to identify and
pursue. As a result, the poverty rate in Indian country is exceedingly high at 25.3
percent, nearly three times the national average.4 These employment and economic
development challenges exacerbate the housing situation in Indian Country. Our
first Americans face some of the worst housing and living conditions in the country,
1 There are approximately 566 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages
in the United States, all of whom are eligible for membership in NAIHC. Other NAIHC members include State-recognized tribes that were deemed eligible for housing assistance under the
1937 Housing Act and grandfathered in to the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996.
2 Bureau of Indian Affairs Labor Force Report (2005).
3 Many of these reservations are in the State of South Dakota, which has one of the lowest
unemployment rates in the Nation. On some South Dakota reservations, the unemployment rate
exceeds 80 percent.
4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2011.
See http://www.census.gov.

18
and the availability of affordable, adequate, safe housing in Indian Country falls far
below that of the general U.S. population.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, nearly 12 percent of Native American
households lack plumbing compared to 1.2 percent of the general U.S. population.
According to 2002 statistics, 90,000 Indian families were homeless or underhoused.
On tribal lands, 28 percent of Indian households were found to be over-crowded
or to lack adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities. The national average is 5.4
percent when structures that lack heating and electrical equipment are included. Roughly 40 percent of reservation housing is considered inadequate,
compared to 5.9 percent of national households.
Seventy percent of the existing housing stock in Indian Country is in need of
upgrades and repairs, many of them extensive.
Less than half of all reservation homes are connected to a sewer system.
There is already a consensus among many members of Congress, Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tribal leaders, and tribal organizations
that there is a severe housing shortage in tribal communities; that many homes are,
as a result, overcrowded; that many of the existing homes are in need of repairs,
some of them substantial; that many homes lack basic amenities that many of us
take for granted, such as full kitchens and plumbing; and that at least 250,000 new
housing units are needed in Indian Country.
These issues are further complicated by the status of Indian lands, which are held
in trust or restricted-fee status. As a result, private financial institutions will generally not recognize tribal homes as collateral to make improvements or for individuals to finance new homes. Private investment in the real estate market in Indian
Country is virtually non-existent, with tribes almost entirely dependent on the Federal Government for financial assistance to meet their growing housing needs. The
provision of such assistance is consistent with the Federal Governments well established trust responsibility to American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages.
THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT

In 1996, Congress passed the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) to provide Federal statutory authority to address the
above-mentioned housing disparities in Indian Country. NAHASDA is the cornerstone for providing housing assistance to low income Native American families on
Indian reservations, in Alaska Native villages, and on Native Hawaiian Home
Lands.
The Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) is the funding component of NAHASDA,
and since the passage of NAHASDA in 1996 and its first fiscal year of funding in
1998, NAHASDA has been the single largest source of funding for Native housing.
Administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, NAHASDA
specifies which activities are eligible for funding.5 Not only do IHBG funds support
new housing development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and other housing services
that are critical for tribal communities; they cover essential planning and operating
expenses for tribal housing entities. Between 2006 and 2010, a significant portion
of IHBG funds, approximately 24 percent, were used for planning, administration,
and housing management and services.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT AND FISCAL YEAR 2010 INDIAN HOUSING
FUNDS

NAIHC would like to thank Congress for its important work to increase the muchneeded investment in Indian housing during the past several years. In fiscal year
2010 the American Recovery and Reinvestment ACT (ARRA) of 2009 provided over
$500 million for the IHBG program. This additional investment in Indian Country
supported hundreds of jobs, permitted some tribes to start on new construction
projects, and assisted still other tribes in completing essential infrastructure for
housing projects that they could not have otherwise afforded with their yearly IHBG
allocations. Tribes have complied with the mandate to obligate the funds in an expeditious manner, thus helping stimulate tribal, regional and the national economies.
In addition to ARRA funding, Congress appropriated $700 million for the IHBG
in fiscal year 2010, the first significant increase for the program since its inception.
This positive step reversed a decade of stagnate funding levels that neither kept
5 Eligible activities include but are not limited to down-payment assistance, property acquisition, new construction, safety programs, planning and administration, and housing rehabilitation.

19
pace with inflation nor addressed the acute housing needs in Native communities.
As you know, the Congress did not continue the upward trajectory in Indian housing
funding and the appropriations have remained flat for each the past two fiscal years
at $650 million.
THE PRESIDENTS 2013 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE INDIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

President Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget request on February 13,
2012. The PBR established total spending of level of $3.80 trillion, up from an estimated $3.79 trillion enacted in fiscal year 2012. This spending level includes $44.8
billion in budget authority for HUD, a 3.2 percent increase above the fiscal year
2012 funding level.
Despite the increase in overall HUD spending, the administration has proposed
level funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) at $650 million for fiscal
year 2013. Were the Presidents budget proposal to be accepted, it would mark the
third consecutive year that the budget would be flat-lined. The budget proposal also
includes $60 million for the Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG),
the same level of funding that was appropriated in fiscal year 2012, and zero funding for the widely acclaimed training and technical assistance (T/TA) program.
NAIHC respectfully requests that funding for the 2013 ICDBG be set at $100 million for the much-needed housing, infrastructure and economic development activities that the ICDBG provides, and that the T/TA funding be no less than $4.8 million.
The NAIHC is the only national Indian housing organization that provides comprehensive training and technical assistance (T/TA) on behalf of tribal nations and
their housing entities. Because they know the value added by NAIHC, the NAIHC
membership has voted unanimously during each of their annual conventions since
2006 to support a resolution that seeks to set aside a portion of their own Indian
Housing Block Grant funding to support NAIHCs T/TA program. In addition,
NAIHC members have expressed concerns about the quality of training provided by
HUD contractors. Again, to ensure high quality T/TA, the NAIHC should be funded
at not less than $4.8 million.
I want to again express, on behalf of the 271 tribal housing programs representing
some 463 tribes that make up the NAIHC membership, our sincere gratitude for the
subcommittees support. It is worth noting that the ARRA funding spend-out rate
for tribal programs exceeded the spend-out rate of HUDs non-Indian ARRA-funded
programs. Spending rates for the tribal programs were at the 95 percent level,
which is fully 10 percent more than the total HUD expenditure rate of 85 percent.
When tribal communities are provided access to much needed housing funding, they
are able to efficiently and effectively utilize these dollars to address the longstanding housing and infrastructure needs of their communities. Sustained Federal
investment in housing and infrastructure for Native peoples is essential to maintaining the momentum gained by recent investment.
OTHER INDIAN HOUSING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

The Title VI and Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Programs
The Presidents budget request includes $2 million for the Federal guarantees for
Financing Tribal Housing Activities, also known as the Title VI Loan Guarantee
program, and $7 million for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, also
known as the Section 184 Program. The Title VI program is important because it
provides a 95 percent loan guarantee on loans made by private lenders, which is
an incentive for lenders to get involved in the development of much needed housing
in tribal areas.
The Section 184, Indian Home Loan Program, is specifically intended to facilitate
home loans in Indian Country. NAIHC believes that, based on several years of experience, the PBR for these two programs, funded at $2 million for the title VI program as requested in the PBR, but respectively request that the funding for the Section 184 program be restored to the $9 million level that was enacted for fiscal year
2009.
Indian Community Development Block Grant
While appreciated, the Presidents proposal of $60 million for the ICDBG is insufficient to meet the current needs for essential infrastructure, including sewer and
running water, in Indian Country. We request that this program be funded at $100
million.

20
Native Hawaiian Housing
Low income Native Hawaiian families continue to face tremendous challenges,
similar to those that tribal members face in the rest of the United States. The Presidents funding request of $13 million for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
is appreciated; however, NAIHC recommends this program be funded at $20 million.
And the budget includes no funding for the section 184A program in Hawaii. While
it has taken some time to get this program startedbecause lenders are not familiar with the section 184A programproviding no funding would be a step backward
for Native Hawaiian families working toward homeownership. We urge Congress to
consider this before agreeing to the administrations proposal to eliminate funding
for the program.
TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND THE PROPOSED TRANSFORMATION
INITIATIVE

The Presidents proposed budget eliminates entirely the much-needed, exceptional

T/TA that has been provided by NAIHC since the inception of NAHASDA. The provision of T/TA is critical for tribes to build their capacity to effectively plan, implement, and manage tribal housing programs. Eliminating funding for T/TA would be
disastrous for tribal housing authorities and would be a huge step in the wrong direction. Tribes need more assistance in building capacity, not less.
Since NAIHCs funding for T/TA was restored in 2007, requests for T/TA have
steadily grown. The funding that NAIHC is currently receiving is insufficient to
meet the continuous, growing demand for T/TA. Therefore, we are forced to make
difficult decisions regarding when, where, and how to provide the most effective T/
TA possible to our membership.
The budget request proposes an agency-wide Transformation Initiative Fund (TIF)
with up to 0.5 percent of HUDs total budget, which would draw funds away from
essential housing programs, including $3.3 million from the IHBG account, to continue the on-going comprehensive study of housing needs in Indian Country and native communities in Alaska and Hawaii. While the NAIHC membership believes
the TIF may have merit, we do not believe that transferring nearly $3.3 million
from the IHBG is a wise or even defensible use of IHBG funds.
More importantly, the $3.3 million affects funding that has historically been appropriated to NAIHC for T/TA. As I have previously noted, the NAIHC membership
has repeatedly taken the position that a portion of the IHBG allocation should be
provided to NAIHC for T/TA, which is a reflection of their confidence in NAIHC and
the continuing demand for the essential capacity-building services that we provide.
We request that funding in the amount of $4.8 million for T/TA be included in the
fiscal year 2013 budget.
CONCLUSION

NAHASDA was enacted to provide Indian tribes and Native American communities with new and creative tools necessary to develop culturally appropriate, safe,
decent, affordable housing. While we value and appreciate the investment and efforts that this administration and the Congress have made possible, NAIHC has
very specific concerns, enumerated above, with the Presidents proposed budget for
the Indian housing funding levels and hopes that Congress, with the leadership of
this important committee, will work with the NAIHC and the administration to recognize the acute housing needed that continue to exist in tribal communities.
Consider these needs against a backdrop that includes the following observation
from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in their report 10326, Native
American Housing, issued in February 2010 to the Senate Committee on Banking
and the House Committee on Financial Services which noted that the following:
NAHASDAs first appropriation in fiscal year 1998 was $592 million, and average
funding was approximately $633 million between 1998 and 2009. The highest level
of funding was $691 million in 2002, and the lowest was $577 million in 1999. For
fiscal year 2009, the programs appropriation was $621 million. However, when accounting for inflation, constant dollars have generally decreased since the enactment
of NAHASDA. The highest level of funding in constant dollars was $779 million in
1998, and the lowest was $621 million in 2009. 6
The needs in Indian Country have not lessened since this report was issued just
2 years ago. In fact, a cursory review of the Department of Commerces Bureau of
the Census suggests the needs continue to increase along with a growing and ever
6 See

GAO Report 10326 at www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-326.

21
younger population. In a report prepared in November 2011 7 the Census reported
that:
The Nations American Indian and Alaska Native population increased by 1.1
million between the 2000 Census and 2010 Census, or 26.7 percent, while the
overall population growth was 9.7 percent;
The median income of American Indian and Alaska Native households was
$35,062 compared with $50,046 for the Nation as a whole;
The percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives that were in poverty in
2010 was 28.4 percent compared to the 15.3 percent for the Nation as a whole;
and
The percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native householders who owned
their own home in 2010 was 54 percent compared with 65 percent of the overall
population.
I wish to conclude this written testimony by thanking Chairwoman Murray,
Ranking Member Collins, and all of the members of this subcommittee for allowing
us to express our views and our aspirations. NAHASDA is a key element in improving the overall living conditions in Native America. The path to a self-sustaining
economy is not achievable without a robust housing sector and tribal housing conditions will not be improved without adequate funding. NAHASDA is not just about
constructing houses. It is about building tribal communitiescommunities where
health and safety are a top priority and where education can take place. Not only
is the tribal economy impacted, but so too are the lives of families and individuals
who live in substandard housing.
I know we can count on you to support our efforts. Together, we can continue the
important work of building communities in Indian Country. Your continued support
of Native American communities is truly appreciated, and the NAIHC is eager to
work with you and your professional staff on any and all issues pertaining to Indian
housing programs and living conditions for Americas indigenous people.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

UNIVERSITY CORPORATION
RESEARCH

FOR

ATMOSPHERIC

On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), I submit this written testimony to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, for the committee record. UCAR is a consortium of over 100 research institutions, including 77 doctoral-degree granting universities, which manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). I respectfully urge the
subcommittee to support:
The Federal Aviation Administrations (FAAs) Research, Engineering and Development account$180 million, including $18 million for the Weather Program and $10 million for Weather Technology in the Cockpit.
FAAs Facilities and Equipment account$285 billion which includes $57.2 million for System-Wide Information Management (SWIM) and $23.8 million for
Common Support Services.
The Federal Highway Administrations (FHWAs) Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) programthe full request of $110 million which includes $46.1
million for IntelliDrive VV and VI Communications for Safety and $15.5 million for Dynamic Mobility Applications.
Life and property could be spared, and economic performance improved across the
Nation, if weather information were utilized more effectively by decision makers
such as airline pilots, personal vehicle drivers, and the trucking industry. Over the
past two and a half decades, the Department of Transportation (DOT), in partnership with NCAR and the academic community, has creatively and economically developed technologies to foresee weather-related problems and mitigate the effects of
meteorological hazards, including wind shear, icing, and turbulence. Leveraging the
expertise of the research community, the FAA and FHWA depend on their partners
to develop weather-resilient systems and infrastructure. I would like to comment on
the following programs that support continued collaborative partnerships between
the DOT, FAA, and FHWA and the atmospheric science community:
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Current and projected growth in the volume, complexity, and economic importance
of air transportation clearly demonstrates the need for a new paradigm supporting
7 See
Census
at
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/factslforlfeatures
lspecialleditions/cb11-ff22.html.

22
air traffic services in the 21st century. Many new factors compound the new centurys challenge to safe and efficient air operations. For example, aircraft passenger
and freight load requirements will be 23 times higher, increasing use of polar
routes will introduce new hazards to crews and passengers, and new navigational
technologies that allow more flexible routing and separation of aircraft are not fully
compatible with the current air traffic control system. Capacity will become an increasingly limiting factor at many airports. Efficiency of flight operations en-route
will become more critical. Since weather conditions seriously affect air traffic operations (the cost to divert a flight, for example, is upwards of $150,000), the manner
by which weather is observed, predicted, disseminated and used within air traffic
decision processes and systems is of critical national importance. Thus, it is critical
to invest in Federal research and development efforts that will help mitigate these
costs and increase safety.
FAA RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT (RE&D)

The fiscal year 2013 request continues important work in current research areas,
including aviation weather research. The proposed budget supports enhanced Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) research and development efforts
in the areas of air-ground integration, weather information for pilots, and environmental research for aircraft technologies as well as alternative fuels to improve
aviations environmental and energy performance. The following programs can be
found within the RE&D section of the fiscal year 2013 FAA budget request.
Weather Program.The goal of the Weather Program is to increase safety and capacity, and to support NextGen. A number of aviation weather research projects are
underway, in collaboration with industry representatives, focusing on in-flight icing,
turbulence, winter weather and deicing protocols, thunderstorms, ceiling, and visibility. One example of a system that translates a large amount of weather data into
significant safety and delay improvements is the Aviation Digital Data Service
(ADDS). This strong collaboration between the FAA and the National Weather Service provides the latest forecasting breakthroughs to the entire aviation community
to help reduce significant safety hazards and major causes of system delays. Using
ADDS, accurate forecasts of aviation weather can be translated into probable impacts to the system. This allows for improved decisionmaking, resulting in improved
safety and reduced delays.
I am very concerned that the budget request will not support the R&D needs of
the Weather Program. The request for this program is down from the fiscal year
2010, fiscal year 2011, and fiscal year 2012 funding levels and is operating at half
the level of funding of 10 years ago. Yet our skies have become more crowded, with
more than 87,000 flights in each day according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and the need for this research greater. To address the challenges
and to meet the research needs of NextGen, I urge you to support $18 million, at
a minimum, for the Weather Program for fiscal year 2013.
Weather Technology in the Cockpit.Pilots currently have little weather information as they fly over remote stretches of ocean where some of the worst turbulence
is encountered. At the very least, providing pilots with an approximate picture of
developing storms could help guide them safely around areas of potentially severe
turbulence.
In addition, the most vulnerable pilots, those engaged in General Aviation activities, are forced to make critical weather decisions in the cockpit without support of
a ground-based dispatcher for assistance. Weather Technology in the Cockpit is
launching a project to develop a mobile meteorological capability for use by this
community.
Weather Technology in the Cockpit leverages research activities with other agencies, academia and the private sector by enabling the adoption of cockpit technologies that provide pilots with hazardous weather information and improve situational awareness. I am very disappointed that the Presidents fiscal year 2013 request of $4.8 million for this small but life-saving program was reduced almost 50
percent from fiscal year 2012 levels. I urge the subcommittee to fund the Weather
Technology in the Cockpit program at $10 million, at a minimum.
FAA FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Within Facilities and Equipment, I would like to call your attention to the following extremely important programs:
NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW).Delays in the National Airspace
System (NAS) are primarily attributable to weather. According to the FAA, over the
last 5 years more than 70 percent of delays of 15 minutes or more, on average, were
caused by weather. Weather also affects safety. Between 1994 and 2003, weather

23
was determined to be a contributing factor in over 20 percent of all accidents. Currently, most operational decision tools do not utilize weather information effectively
or at all. Exploring, identifying, and employing better methods for data collection
and communication will help facilitate the flow of operation-specific weather data
and information to end users. The NNEW multiagency project is dedicated to using
and developing technologies and standards for NextGen that will support effective
dissemination of weather data. NNEW will develop the FAAs portion of the 4-Dimensional (4-D) Weather Data Cube. This will provide standardized information
from disparate contributors and locations, to a variety of end-users such as air traffic managers and pilots.
In the fiscal year 2013 request, the NNEW activity is listed under System-Wide
Information Management (SWIM). Funding for the R&D work contributing to the
4-D Weather Data Cube will come from Common Support Services within SWIM,
requested at $23.8 million. These services disseminate aviation weather information
in a network enabled environment. From fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012, UCAR
helped the FAA frame and establish this effort under the name NextGen Net-Enabled Weather (NNEW). I strongly urge the subcommittee to support the $23.8 million request for Common Support Services within System-Wide Information Management (SWIM) and recommend that Congress retain the NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) title.
NextGen Reduce Weather Impact.The current weather observing network of the
National Airspace System is inadequate to meet the needs of NextGen. The
NextGen Reduce Weather Impact program will increase network capacity, reducing
congestion and meeting projected demand in an environmentally sound manner.
Working with appropriate scientific, modeling and user communities, current sensor
information and dissemination shortfalls will be identified and evaluated. Technologies for optimizing and improving automated aircraft weather reporting will be
investigated to meet NextGen requirements. The Reduce Weather Impact portfolio
will leverage the NNEW transformational program that will interface with NOAAs
4-D Weather Data Cube, for universal common access to weather information. To
continue the work of NextGen Reduce Weather Impact, I urge the subcommittee to
increase the fiscal year 2013 funding for the program from the requested $16.6 million to $43.2 million.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are over
six million vehicle crashes on average each year. Twenty-four percent of these crashesover 1.5 millionare weather-related. Weather-related crashes are defined as
those crashes that occur in adverse weather (i.e., rain, sleet, snow, and/or fog) or
on slick pavement (i.e., wet pavement, snowy/slushy pavement, or icy pavement). On
average, 7,130 people are killed and over 629,000 people are injured in weather-related crashes each year. The FHWA Road Weather Management Program seeks to
better understand the impacts of weather on roadways, and promote strategies and
tools to mitigate those impacts. UCAR and its partners are key contributors the
FHWAs vision of Anytime, Anywhere Road Weather Information for road users
and road operating agencies. Central to this commitment is the FHWAs Intelligent
Transportation Systems program within its Research, Technology and Education
Program.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) within the Department of Transportations Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).The Connected Vehicle Technology (formerly IntelliDrive) program remains the centerpiece
of the DOT ITS 20102014 Strategic Research Plan. This program creates partnerships between government, industry, academia and others to specify, develop and
produce the necessary technology to continuously gather and broadcast information
about a moving vehicle, including its surrounding weather conditions.
An example of leading edge applications and services supported by ITS is the Vehicle Data Translator, a prototype tool being developed at UCAR that will give drivers near-immediate information about unforeseen hazards. The system, which underwent field testing this past winter in Minnesota and Nevada, will inform drivers
of what weather conditions they can expect to encounter in the next few seconds
and minutes, giving them a critical opportunity to slow down or take other action.
Once the system is operational, an onboard digital memory device will collect weather data such as temperature, and indirect indications of road conditions such as
windshield wipers being switched on, or the activation of antilock brakes. The processed data will then be used to warn motorists about upcoming hazardseverything
from icy roads to a nearby vehicle that is being driven erraticallyand suggest al-

24
ternate routes, if appropriate. The system will also alert emergency managers to
hazardous driving conditions and help road crews clear snow more efficiently.
To meet its core research and technology transfer mission, and support projects
like the Vehicle Data Translator, I urge the subcommittee to support the requested
amount of $110 million for ITS, which includes $46.1 million for IntelliDrive VV
and VI Communications for Safety and $15.5 million for Dynamic Mobility Applications.
On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the subcommittee for its leadership in supporting research and development and technology transfer programs within the
FHWA and FAA and for your commitment to ensuring safer, more efficient air and
road travel. I urge you to support these relatively small but critically important
R&D programs within the FHWA and FAA fiscal year 2013 budgets.